That term lesser of 2 evils is an understatement of extreme proportions here. As a liberal on social issues but someone who leans more towards the conservative side on fiscal issues I really dont know. I can really say however I never voted for someone because of their party affiliation. I do know that with the 2 party system it is all cyclical. The Dems took control 2 years ago & boasted about it. The repubs will do the same in November. They all should realize that whoever is in power , they are not gonna help anyway , the people will get fed up want change , vote the other party in & then will get no change once again. So their victory is short lived & only provides amunition to the media. I do know however that it is not a good thing to have 1 party control all 3 branches of the govt. I do know that some of these tea party people scare me because of their extremists views but I also get that the people are fed up & that is a good thing. How nice it would be to once again be in times when jobs were abundant , your home had value , poverty was low & people were generally nicer.

If that would mean they have to work together and make intelligent compromises to pass any legislation, then yes. But they way the parties have been polarized, I doubt they can work together and accomplish anything. More likely, nothing of substance would get done. Definately no reform would be made.

Two very polarized parties shared power from 1994 to 2000 and managed to reform welfare, balance the federal budget and oversee a 5 year period of economic expansion.

IMO, the polarization now if FAR more than it was just 5-10 years ago.

Let's look at the unilateral health care "reform" and the non-existent immigration reform as examples of how well our two parties compromise to reach intelligent results.

Not sure that is true. Clinton tried to govern from the far left and was forced to compromise. People were at each other's throats over issues like abortion, gay rights, welfare, a bad economy, etc. 10 Years ago Bush was elected and the US couldn't have been more polarized by that election. I don't recall Democratic leadership cutting him a break or endorsing his ideas.

Clinton became centrist, what he ran on, and with a Republican Congress passed the reforms Rich mentioned. Now just imagine what Obama the uniter, (the one who just told voters, Latino voters in particular, to punish their enemies) could accomplish if he reached across the aisle and set ineffective ideology aside for pragmatic solutions with the Republicans.

Now just imagine what Obama the uniter, (the one who just told voters, Latino voters in particular, to punish their enemies) could accomplish if he reached across the aisle and set ineffective ideology aside for pragmatic solutions with the Republicans.

I haven't seen either party reach across, hence my use of the examples I mentioned above where one was a completely partison vote and the other is something everyone knows is a broken system, but neither party will compromise at all so absolutely nothing has gotten done and the problem only gets worse.

Only one party has access to the levers of power right now. One party rule is the greatest of all evils.

We had one party ruling for too long under Bush as well. This is an inevitable shift to the other polar end. That is really why Obama was elected. It wasn't his personality, charm, experience or money.

Only one party has access to the levers of power right now. One party rule is the greatest of all evils.

We had one party ruling for too long under Bush as well. This is an inevitable shift to the other polar end. That is really why Obama was elected. It wasn't his personality, charm, experience or money.

Oh I don't know about that. I think all those things were a factor.

1. People tired of Bush and Republicans2. Obama's charisma and ability to read well3. Obama's message that has gone counter to everything he has actually done4. Obama foregoing public funds and using half a billion dollars

1. People tired of Bush and Republicans2. Obama's charisma and ability to read well3. Obama's message that has gone counter to everything he has actually done4. Obama foregoing public funds and using half a billion dollars

Throw in:

5. The inept McCain campaign

All those things played a factor.

There were plenty of factors. IMO the biggest was that the economy was so bad and a LOT of people blamed Bush and the Republicans. It wasn't Obama people were voting for, it was the hope of change. And Obama was campaigning that he would "change the face of politics in Washington blah blah blah".

We can all see that he's done such a great job of that. Ha!

I really don't think if McCain had a billion dollars it would have changed anything.

The immigration issue is about votes. That is why a guy like John McCain has flip flopped. The health care issue was about wanting to get in the history books without realizing the consequences of the legislation. I haven't seen any Republicans change positions on health care but you now have Democrats campaigning against it.

I agree with you to an extent on crossing the aisle. Its not going to happen consistently. The point was that Clinton was heading down a road of failure before he moved more to the center. It wasn't a blissful marriage with that Republican Congress, but at least some things got done. Obama would be wise to take a page from that playbook and stop getting mad that people won't blindly follow him. And I do think the country has been this polarized for a long time, its just now the right is getting louder so it seems more relevant.

I really don't think if McCain had a billion dollars it would have changed anything.

Maybe money wouldn't have changed anything, but McCain really screwed himself with the conservative base when he sat idly by as Bush rolled out TARP.

McCain missed a perfect opportunity to oppose TARP and associate Bush and Obama, who both supported it.

Instead, he tried to pull a stunt by saying he may need to cancel a debate to handle serious business and then sat quietly as everyone else gave their opinion on the impending financial crisis.

Right before all this happened. McCain had a lead in the polls outside the margin of error. Right after, he fell behind and never got within 5 points again.

The conservative base wasn't his biggest group of supporters and he needed to be perfect in every other way in order to have them behind him. That's why he brought in that idiot Palin. He took her to try and appeal to them, even if she wasn't experienced enough or intelligent enough to impress anyone else.

That term lesser of 2 evils is an understatement of extreme proportions here. As a liberal on social issues but someone who leans more towards the conservative side on fiscal issues I really dont know. I can really say however I never voted for someone because of their party affiliation. I do know that with the 2 party system it is all cyclical. The Dems took control 2 years ago & boasted about it. The repubs will do the same in November. They all should realize that whoever is in power , they are not gonna help anyway , the people will get fed up want change , vote the other party in & then will get no change once again. So their victory is short lived & only provides amunition to the media. I do know however that it is not a good thing to have 1 party control all 3 branches of the govt. I do know that some of these tea party people scare me because of their extremists views but I also get that the people are fed up & that is a good thing. How nice it would be to once again be in times when jobs were abundant , your home had value , poverty was low & people were generally nicer.

I do know that with the 2 party system it is all cyclical. The Dems took control 2 years ago & boasted about it. The repubs will do the same in November. They all should realize that whoever is in power , they are not gonna help anyway , the people will get fed up want change , vote the other party in & then will get no change once again. So their victory is short lived & only provides amunition to the media. I do know however that it is not a good thing to have 1 party control all 3 branches of the govt. I do know that some of these tea party people scare me because of their extremists views but I also get that the people are fed up & that is a good thing.

Democrats had control of Congress for 50 years before 1994. Not very cyclical.

I'd say overhauling the health care system, financial regulation, and massively increasing the size of government in serious change in less than 2 years.

Which extremist views are you referring to? Not being sarcastic, but the tea party has a diverse crowd so I'm interested to see which wing you think is extremist.

[/quote]How nice it would be to once again be in times when jobs were abundant , your home had value , poverty was low & people were generally nicer.[/quote]

Which extremist views are you referring to? Not being sarcastic, but the tea party has a diverse crowd so I'm interested to see which wing you think is extremist.

No sarcasm taken , in fact I like the discussion , maybe I can learn something because Politics & Politicians is something I loathe. I guess what scares me when it comes to tea party is the non beleif of separation of church & state. I get the pro life stance & I respect it but in cases of rape & incest I cannot see why anyone should be forced into having that baby , getting rid of social security , the whole 2 parents working is a bad theory. And other things. If I am misinformed than let me know but some of these views worry me. It hits close to home with me .... I had a friend for a long time , never discussed political or religious views with him , when my wife could not get pregnant & we turned to IVF & had our twin girls he said he could not support this decision because he deemed it as un natural & not gods way. Not to mention what he said about the girls ... I guess this is the extremeism that worries me.I just want people who we elect to govern but not from the pulpit. Have the peoples interest in mind , feed the hungry , help the poor , improve quality of life ... pretty good concepts.I am sure there are good people out there from both parties , ones who really care. Its just a shame you have to be a millionaire to win an election.

Mitch, where did you get that the Tea Party is pushing social issues? The core of the Tea Party sprung from the Ron Paul campaign, they tend to be very libertarian and are focused on the economy and exhorbitant federal spending. Yes, unfortunately segments of the social conservative wing of the Republican Party are latching on but for the most part they are focused on economic issues.

I have to agree with Rich in that the Tea Party really isn't based on social issues. There may be some within the movement who back a more religion based approach, but I don't think they are vocalizing those issues.

There are some social issues that get lumped in, espeically immigration. I'm sure race plays a factor for some, but I think many view it as an economic problem. It was just reported here in MA that 41 million dollars were spent on aid to illegal immigrants last year. Meanwhile the state is has a 2 billion dollar defecit and last 21,000 jobs in September alone. Obama's aunt, an illegal immigrant living in South Boston, gets 700 dollars per month and free housing. She was recently interviewed and said she deserves it because America owes it to the less fortunate (paraphrasing of course). That didn't exactly garner a great response from the public.

Point is that I don't think the social issues are driving the movement, but when they are tied into economic problems its hard to separate the two. I think most in the Tea Party just want to lower taxes and spending, and many have been told for decades that if they oppose certain things they are every ism under the sun. They are finally being as vocal as the liberals on the left.